 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> I still find it slightly weird that if I ask a friend to copy a CD for
> me, that's illegal.
Not necessarily.
> But if I turn on my radio and listen to the exact
> same music, that's completely legal. Either way it costs me nothing, and
> it's the exact same music. WTF?
The radio station pays a fee every time they play a song.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Serving Suggestion:
"Don't serve this any more. It's awful."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> You say the industry needs to "deal with that", but I'm really not
>> sure where that leaves us. The only obvious solution is to just not
>> sell content for money any more, since the model isn't workable.
>
> Well, you might show movies only in the movie theater, or at least count
> as gravy anything you sell outside the theater.
Unfortunately, some content distributors seem to be labouring under the
delusion that DRM = "we can invent arbitrary prising structures and
people will actually pay what we demand". Hopefully that will wear off soon.
> You might make draconian
> DRM, or DRM so transparent that most people don't mind it (like with
> video game consoles or Steam).
I love the way that Steam won't let you log in twice, so you can install
the same game on two PCs, but you can only play it on one at once...
...unless you put Steam into offline mode. *facepalm*
Still, I guess it means you can't play *multiplayer* games from two PCs
at once...
>> (This of course leads directly to high quality content no longer being
>> made, which would be very sad.)
>
> But that's my point. High quality content used to be made before it was
> easy to make copies at all.
Given that copying becoming easy is the problem... what's your point here?
>> What's TSA?
>
> The "security" at US airports that pretends to be catching terrorists.
Oh, that.
>> The other reason is that you *must* take the DRM off to use the thing.
>> No matter which way the image data is encrypted, you /must/ decrypt it
>> in order to see it. If you can see it, you can copy it.
>
> Well, that's what makes it possible to break in the first place. But the
> average joe wouldn't know how to rip a blu-ray disk. The problem is that
> if it costs more time and effort to break the DRM than the protected
> thing is worth, it's not worth doing. Nobody is going to spend two days
> ripping a blu-ray disk when you can buy it for $15. The problem is that
> someone *will* spend two days ripping it (a) just to prove they can and
> (b) in order to give it to thousands of other people.
Yeah, pretty much. I gather zero-day cracks are a relished challenge for
some people. (Then again, most of the DRM I've seen surely can't be
*that* hard to crack in the first place...)
> Nowadays, the video is (in theory) decrypted only inside your monitor,
> so the idea that you have to decrypt it to see it is not as much of a
> stumbling block. People are figuring out ways around that problem, and
> the battle continues.
I don't think that's how it works. I thought the idea is that the
encrypted content is decrypted inside your graphics card, processed as
necessary (e.g., colour balance, or compositing it with the rest of your
Windows display), and re-encrypted before leaving the pins of the chip
in the circuit board. So the encrypted link from the graphics card to
the monitor is a completely seperate cryptosystem from the encryption on
the disk (or whatever).
Ultimately, what it all boils down to is that the piece of electronics
in front of you knows how to decrypt the video data. Which means that,
in theory, you can do this too. The keys must be stored somewhere. It's
merely a question of how awkward it is to do, as a practical matter. As
you say, you've only got to pull it off once.
>> About the only thing this potentially doesn't apply to is computer
>> software. (Or anything similarly interactive, I guess.) Even then, if
>> you can somehow pluck the decrypted data out of the computer's memory...
>
> Computer software isn't a whole lot easier to break.
>
> Of course, DRM is only as good as the hardware it's stored in.
That's basically what it comes down to, yeah. Software running on a
general computer system that you have full control over? It's toast.
People paying money for computer systems that purposely prevent them
doing stuff? Not gonna be popular. :-P
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> I still find it slightly weird that if I ask a friend to copy a CD for
>> me, that's illegal.
>
> Not necessarily.
Try telling that to the makers of my CD recorder that only records onto
specially marked disks which cost 7x more "to support the record
industry". In other words, "if you are using our product, you must be
doing something illegal, so we're going to fine you". Yes, thanks, it's
not like I'm a musician myself and I'm using it to copy works which I
legally own the right to copy... >_<
>> But if I turn on my radio and listen to the exact same music, that's
>> completely legal. Either way it costs me nothing, and it's the exact
>> same music. WTF?
>
> The radio station pays a fee every time they play a song.
And that fee is identical regardless of whether they have two thousand
listeners or zero listeners. (Which I guess just means that it's a
really bad - or maybe really good? - deal for the radio operators.)
Still, it's weird that if I guy visits my house and I happen to be
playing a CD, that's illegal, but if that exact same tune happens to be
playing on the radio and he hears it, that's perfectly legal.
In fact, no, this is weirder: If *I* play the radio to him, that's
illegal. Even though he can go out to his car and play his own radio,
and then that's legal. WTF?
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 24-1-2011 21:53, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> I still find it slightly weird that if I ask a friend to copy a CD for
>>> me, that's illegal.
>>
>> Not necessarily.
>
> Try telling that to the makers of my CD recorder that only records onto
> specially marked disks which cost 7x more "to support the record
> industry". In other words, "if you are using our product, you must be
> doing something illegal, so we're going to fine you". Yes, thanks, it's
> not like I'm a musician myself and I'm using it to copy works which I
> legally own the right to copy... >_<
>
>>> But if I turn on my radio and listen to the exact same music, that's
>>> completely legal. Either way it costs me nothing, and it's the exact
>>> same music. WTF?
>>
>> The radio station pays a fee every time they play a song.
>
> And that fee is identical regardless of whether they have two thousand
> listeners or zero listeners. (Which I guess just means that it's a
> really bad - or maybe really good? - deal for the radio operators.)
>
> Still, it's weird that if I guy visits my house and I happen to be
> playing a CD, that's illegal,
No that is a private playing (if that is a word). As long as you don't
play it in public (a pub or on your speakers outside with the intention
that random people can hear it, e.g. during a rally near your home).
Basically as long as you know everybody who is listening and no
arbitrary strangers can come in it is OK. At a private party you can
play any music owned by anyone in there. Or any radio that anyone can
receive for that matter.
In the same logic you can not play the radio in a pub, unless you pay to
do so.
When it gets weird is when what you do passes the boundary of the house.
Play the radio so loud that the neighbour can hear you: that is ok.
connect your neighbours stereo to your output and you become a
broadcasting company. Then *you* have to pay the record companies. That
you paid your license fee and so did the neighbour is irrelevant.
At least it is that way in the Netherlands. The problem crops up if you
have an antenna for the whole apartment building. It may be cheaper,
easier and visually more attractive than all individual antennae on the
roof, but the group of owners of that antenna is a broadcasting company.
> but if that exact same tune happens to be
> playing on the radio and he hears it, that's perfectly legal.
>
> In fact, no, this is weirder: If *I* play the radio to him, that's
> illegal. Even though he can go out to his car and play his own radio,
> and then that's legal. WTF?
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 24 Jan 2011 09:38:30 +0000, Invisible wrote:
>>>> Depends on the quality you're looking for, but yes, having the right
>>>> tools helps (in both cases).
>>>
>>> I'd suggest having the right technicians helps more. Mix engineering
>>> is non-trivial, whether you have the right equipment or not.
>>
>> I consider the personnel part of the toolset in this case. Just like
>> if you're publishing a technical book, having a good technical reviewer
>> and editor is essential to ending with a good product.
>
> Drifting somewhat off topic here, but today you can buy software and
> hardware that lets you use a home PC to do almost everything that would
> be possible in a recording studio. (About the only bit you *can't*
> easily do is really high quality recording of acoustic signals. But if
> you're making synthesizer music like me, that's irrelevant.)
Well, you can do it, but the capture equipment can get fairly pricey
(good mics aren't cheap). But at work, we do recording of voice with PC-
based equipment and no recording engineer (at the time of recording - we
clean the recordings after the fact and re-record bits that need it) for
our On Demand training offerings.
Not quite the same as music production, sure. But we do have one guy in
the group who used to do broadcast-quality radio recordings (so he's
taught us a few tricks of the trade) and I have a little background in
sound systems myself.
> The difference, of course, is that me twiddling with the equaliser knob
> is no match for a professional mix engineer who knows WTF he's doing.
> And if you listen to the music I've made, you can tell it doesn't sound
> very good.
Well, I've listened to it, and I thought it did sound good.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 22 Jan 2011 15:18:57 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>>> What did you say :-P
>>
>> I dunno. ;-)
>>
>>
> But I thought...
There was your FIRST mistake. ;-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 21 Jan 2011 20:30:44 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Never mind that its almost a necessity, given the cost of school books,
> the limit on which ones may be available, and the lack of money to
> replace them when outdated (or found to contain incorrect information).
> Its not entirely unheard of for people to be using 50 year old books,
> with gross inaccuracies, and have the school unwilling, or unable, to
> supplement/replace them.
Perhaps - and often times the copyright holders will overlook it - I've
heard that's the case with sheet music used for classroom use (or similar
educational or not-for-profit use by student organisations).
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 21 Jan 2011 20:35:36 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Ah, well. "Harm" is the billions and billions lost to people not buying
> the overpriced books
The problem I have always had with that "harm", though, is the assumption
that those who illegally copy would have paid for the product if they had
no other choice.
It's probably fair to say that the vast majority of those who pirate
wouldn't pay even if they had no choice. Take Jammie Thomas, for example
- if her reason for downloading was because she didn't want to pay, it
was probably because she couldn't afford to pay. So of course, now
they're suing her into lifelong bankruptcy because their product was
above what she could afford anyways (not strictly true, I know, because
it's not finalized and it's not clear that she illegally downloaded since
the case is more about her distribution of the songs rather than how she
obtained them in the first place).
Software piracy is like that, though: Most of the offenders in computer
games are kids who can't afford the steep prices of many of the
products. Even if the software was DRM'ed, it doesn't cost to work to
break the copy protection, and if you don't have $75 for the game, it's
not right to claim that as lost revenue from those who don't have $75
worth of discretionary income to spend.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 21 Jan 2011 23:41:30 -0800, Darren New wrote:
> I don't think that has been addressed. You can record something to watch
> it later, but I never heard of a case that addressed whether you could
> watch it more than once after you record it.
I've not either, but I think it would be trivial to refer back to the
original Sony case (Betamax, that is - no irony there in the current Sony
litigation against Geohot with the PS3, none at all ;-) ) since the
technology wasn't designed to erase the content after it was viewed.
I think it could be legally argued that since the technology didn't erase-
upon-playback that it was implied that the content might/could be viewed
more than once.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 22 Jan 2011 12:56:14 +0000, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> It's a bit like the old argument over TV adverts. Some people skip 'em,
> but many TV channels couldn't exist without those adverts.
Personally, I don't buy that argument, though. One of the ideas behind
cable TV here in the US was that since people paid a subscription fee,
advertisers weren't needed to support the programming.
But then someone got greedy and said "why not charge a subscription fee
AND get paid by advertisers? We can make more money that way".
And so it is that I spend about $130/month on a basic digital cable
package and end up skipping through commercials.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
